Jeremy Wallace of the Sarasota Herald-Tribune had an interesting story this week about how a Republican candidate for the state House compared the feeling he had when President Barack Obama was elected with his reaction to the terrorist attacks of September 11.
During his first major debate with his opponent Richard DeNapoli earlier this month for House District 74, Julio Gonzalez told more than 100 people at a forum:
“There are two events of historical significance that I remember exactly where I was. One of them was September 11th. I think all of you remember where you were on September 11th. That day I remember I was driving my car to my office to see my patients and I knew that at that moment it was an act of terrorism and I knew at that moment that was an act of war. I also knew that that was the moment where my life would be changed irreversibly. I also remember Nov. 7, 2012. That was the day after Obama got elected. I remember waking up that morning with a pain in the pit of my stomach, knowing that I was going to have to deal with four more years of policies that were going to be designed to ruin or weaken our country and international positions that were going to weaken out position in the globe. I could not take that.”
Those comments could be perceived as inflammatory, although probably not in the Republican primary in House District 74, where it’s apparently acceptable to draw a comparison to a presidential election with an attack of terrorism.
Wallace — or whomever wrote the original headline atop Wallace’s blog post — recognized the newsworthiness of Gonzalez’ comments. The original headline read, “GOP candidate compares Obama re-election to 9/11.”
Yet, later on the headline was changed significantly to read: “Memorable days for GOP candidate: 9/11 and Obama’s re-election.”
Putting aside whether you agree with Gonzalez’ comments, it’s difficult to argue that those two headlines don’t express two entirely different sentiments.